Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nellury Vamsy Krishna vs Jampani Venkatarao, on 10 October, 2025
APHC010032012025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3207]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 298/2025
Between:
1. NELLURY VAMSY KRISHNA, NELLURY VAMSY KRISHNA, S/O LATE
VENKATA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,
R/O. 1ST FLOOR, JAI SRI KRISHNA RESIDENCY 3/3RD LANE,
ASHOK NAGAR, GUNTUR.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. JAMPANI VENKATARAO, S/O. LATE. SESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59
YEARS, R/O. PALAPARRU VILLAGE, PEDANANDIPADU MANDAL,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. PENTELA RAMARAO, S/O. MADANA MOHANA RAO, AGE 51 YEARS,
R/O.DRONADULA VILLAGE, MARTUR MADAL, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the
circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be
pleased to set aside the orders passed in I.A No. 52 of 2023 in O.S.No. 27 of
2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narasaraopet,
Palnadu District, erstwhile Guntur District, A.P, Dt.20- 07-2023
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 27 of 2019 on the file of the Principal
2
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, erstwhile Guntur
District, A.P,, till decide this Civil Revision Petition
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
2. UPENDRA RAO MANUKONDA
The Court made the following:
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.298 of 2025
O R D E R:
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order, dated 20.07.2023 in I.A.No.52 of 2023 in O.S.No.27 of 2019, on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet ("trial Court" for short).
2) Heard Sri P.V.S.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Upender Rao, learned counsel for the 1 st respondent and perused the material available on record.
3) Both the parties in the Civil Revision Petition will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit for convenience.
4) The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.61 of 2018 before the trial Court.
5) The facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants to declare that the sale deed bearing No.9527/2015, dated 19.11.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property as null and void and for costs of the suit. Pending the above said suit, the 1st defendant filed I.A.No.52 of 2023 in the suit seeking to demark Ex.A.5 i.e., unregistered Development Agreement, dated 07.08.2013. On hearing both sides counsel, the learned trial Judge allowed the said petition. Felt aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
4
6) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the trial Court allowed the application filed by the 1st defendant only on the ground that the plaintiff filed no counter and another defendant reported no objection. He further contends that only at the time of consideration that cannot be ignored, if the document failed to satisfy the required in accordance with law and it would be a part of Court record and it cannot be demarked. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the docket order, dated 20.07.2023 in I.A.No.52 of 2023 in O.S.No.27 of 2019.
7) Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court on relying the order in C.R.P.No.3542 of 2018 of this Court wherein it is observed that it is desirable to leave this question open in respect of bar under Section 17 of the Registration Act for the parties to raise at appropriate stage in the suit. As observed in the said order, the learned counsel would submit that the trial Court shall consider such objections in the final arguments in the suit after both parties let in evidence. But, demarking the document already marked as Ex.A.5 by the trial Court suffers from serious irregularity and sought to set aside the same by allowing the present Civil Revision Petition.
8) Learned counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that on close reading of Ex.A.5, it required stamp duty and registration as the same is alleged Development Agreement said to be executed by him along with two persons in favour of the plaintiff on 07.08.2013 to mark the same as exhibit on behalf of the plaintiff. He would further contend that 5 due to inadvertence, the said document was marked as Exhibit which is inadmissible in evidence as it is not sufficiently stamped and registered.
9) Learned counsel for the 1st respondent has placed a reliance on two orders of this Court in C.R.P.No.1873 of 2017 and C.R.P.No.1191 of 2020. In C.R.P.No.1873 of 2017 it is observed by this Court that in the absence of any evidence as to the availability of a decision of the trial Court with regard to document in question as to its admission, the application as filed by the defendant is maintainable and it is open to the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty and penalty as per the Rules and make a request to admit the same in evidence and it is for the Court to admit the document and mark the same. In C.R.P.No.1191 of 2020, it is observed by this Court that there is no dispute as to the fact that the revision petitioners have raised objection in writing that the document in question is not admissible in evidence for want of stamp duty and without looking into the objection and either by rejecting the contention or postponing the decision therein, the document has been marked as an exhibit. Accordingly, directed the trial Court to decide the admissibility of the document in evidence in terms of stamp duty required as per law and then proceed further in the trial. On relying these orders passed by this Court, the learned counsel would submit that the order of the trial Court in demarking Ex.A.5 is in accordance with law and sought to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
10) Now the issue to be considered in this revision is whether demarking of Ex.A.5 is proper on the ground that it is suffering on account 6 of insufficient stamp duty and being bar of Section 17(1) of the Indian Registration Act?
11) For proper adjudication of this issue, it is relevant and desirable to look into Sections 35 and 36 of the Indian Stamp Act.
Section 35 of the Act as extracted herein under:
"Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc:- No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped:
Provided that--
(a) any such instrument shall be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of fifteen rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds fifteen rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion;
(b) where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been demanded, has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt, if stamped would be admissible in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him, on payment of a penalty of three rupees by the person tendering it;
(c) where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped;
(d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in any proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898;
(e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government, or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by section 32 or any other provision of this Act."
Section 36 of the Act also as extracted herein under:
"Admission of instruments where not to be questioned:-
Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 61, be called in question at any stage of 7 the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped."
12) On bare perusal of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, it bars any instrument being admitted in evidence for any purpose. As per the requirement in terms of Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act is that an objection should be raised when such instrument is firstly and formally introduced in evidence and before it is admitted.
13) In the present case, admittedly, though Ex.A.5 insufficiently stamped and registered, it was already admitted in evidence. There is no proper reason from the 1st respondent so as to what are the reasons for not raising any objection as to admitting the said document as exhibit in evidence. Now the Ex.A.5 is a part of material record in the suit. Two Civil Revision Petitions i.e., C.R.P.No.1873 of 2017 and C.R.P.No.1191 of 2020 relied on by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent relating to different factual context. In those two cases objections were raised before the instrument was introduced in evidence. But, in the present case, no objections were raised before introduction of the instrument in evidence. As such, these two decisions are not helpful to support the case of the 1st respondent.
13) On the other hand, the decision relied on behalf of the petitioner in C.R.P.No.3542 of 2018 is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The relevant paragraphs of the said order extracted herein under:
14. Therefore, the requirement in terms of Section 36 of Stamp Act is that an objection should be raised when such instrument is firstly 8 and formally introduced in evidence and before it is admitted. It is an imperative means, in as much as Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act provides for a bar to question any such instrument once admitted in evidence, on account of application or otherwise of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act.
15. The fact situation as discussed supra makes out that Ex.A1, though insufficiently stamped was already admitted in evidence.
Whatever be the reasons for the 1st respondent, whereby they could not raise any objection as to such introduction, it is manifest from the record that it has been admitted in evidence. It is a part of material record in the suit.
16. The effect of omission or rather inaction to raise such an objection at appropriate time and stage has been clearly explained in R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder V Arulmigu Visweswaraswami and V.P Temple and another1. This decision is relied on for the petitioner. Relevant observations in this ruling are in paragraphs 20 to 22:
20. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on The Roman Catholic Mission Vs. The State of Madras & Anr. AIR 1966 SC 1457 in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the above said case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, 1 AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 4548 9 would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the later case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence.
In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in superior Court.
21. Privy Council in Padman and Others vs. Hanwanta and Others [AIR 1915 PC 111] did not permit the appellant to take objection to the admissibility of a registered copy of a will in appeal for the first time. It was held that this objection should have been taken in the trial court. It was observed:
"The defendants have now appeal to the Majesty in Council, and the case has been argued on their behalf in great detail. It was urged in the course of the argument that a registered copy of the will of 1898 was admitted in evidence without sufficient foundation being led for its admission. No objection, however, appears to have been taken in the first court against the copy obtained from the Registrar's office being put in evidence. Had such objection being made at the time, the District Judge, who tried the case in the first instance, would probably have seen that the deficiency was supplied. Their lordships think that there is no substance in the present contention."
17. In paragraph 20 of the above ruling their lordships have clearly drawn distinction as to nature of objections with reference to admissibility of documents, classifying into two. One is, in respect per se inadmissible nature of the document and another is, in respect of procedure viz., the mode of proof of a document sought to be introduced in evidence. While Section 35 of the Stamp Act provides a bar for a document to be admitted in evidence if it is not properly stamped, Section 36 speaks of impact and effect of admission of the same document in evidence, though it did not meet the requirements under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Thus, Section 36 of the Stamp Act is also substantive in nature. Therefore, once a document is 10 admitted in evidence despite suffering on account of deficiency in relation to Stamp Act, it cannot be recalled to its original status.
18. Effect of Section 36 of the Stamp Act is reflected in Para-7 of Javer Chand and Ors.Vs.Pukhraj Surana2 as under:
"7. That section is categorical in its terms that when a document has once been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the suit or the proceeding on the ground that the instrument had not been duly stamped. The only exception recognized by the section is the class of cases contemplated by s. 61, which is not material to the present controversy. Section 36 does not admit of other exceptions. Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped, or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided then and there when the document is tendered in evidence. Once the Court, rightly or wrongly, decides to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed. Section 35 is in the nature of a penal provision and has far-reaching effects. Parties to a litigation, where such a controversy is raised, have to be circumspect and the party challenging the admissibility of the document has to be alert to see that the document is not admitted in evidence by the Court. The Court has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case."
19. Judicial determination of admissibility of document, within purview of Section 35 and Section 36 of the Stamp Act is referred in the above ruling of Supreme Court, observing that the Court admitted the document in evidence, when it is tendered in evidence, under the signature of the Presiding Judge of the Court. The requirement appearing in this context is a conscious and perceptible consideration of the nature of the document particularly having regard to the effect of Section 35 and 36 of Stamp Act. In this context, it is desirable to bear in mind the observations of Sri Justice P.Satyanarayana Raju in Mantrala Simhadri Vs. Palli Varalakshmi and Ors.3 as to what shall be the process of judicial determination in respect of a document exhibited in the course of trial or enquiry in the Court and it is extracted below.
"6. .... in the case of a judicial proceeding which is required to be reduced to writing, the record made by the Judge furnishes authentic evidence of what he intended to do and in applying the provisions of Section 36 of the Stamp Act, the Court should have regard to what has been 2 AIR 1961 SC 1655 3 AIR 1962 AP 398 11 actually done and not to the unexpressed intentions of the Judge. The Judge might have intended to reject the document, but if in fact he had not rejected it, but admitted it in evidence, it must be acted upon at all the subsequent stages of the litigation....."
20. In A.P. Laly vs. Gurram Rama Rao 4 , relied on for the 1st respondent, a petition of the nature to de-exhibit a document is held permissible even though the document is already marked. The effect of Section 36 of Stamp Act is also considered in this ruling in given facts, observing that any objection there under pales to insignificance. Javer Chand V Pukhraj Surana is referred in Para- 23 of this ruling, observing that it was so held basing on the endorsement made on the document as admitted in evidence under the signature of the Court. Order-13, Rule 4(d) CPC requires that the document so admitted shall bear a statement having been so admitted by an endorsement, signed or initialled by the Judge. Therefore, when once a document or instrument is admitted in evidence, upon marking it as an exhibit, it is an invariable and an inviolable necessity to follow Order-13, Rule-4 CPC. Therefore, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Javer Chand cannot be construed on such score.
21. A careful reading and understanding of rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Javer Chand V Pukhraj Surana and R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder leave no manner of doubt that the bar under Section 36 of Stamp Act in respect of an instrument, once admitted in evidence, stands. It did not and cannot pale to insignificance. Once a document admitted in evidence it gets insulated thereunder, from the operation of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, subject to exception laid down in Section 36 itself.
22. Added to it, the nature of prohibition contemplated under Section 36 of Stamp Act should be borne in mind. Indian Stamp Act itself is a fiscal enactment. By its very nature it does not admit any other interpretation except strictly following its letter and spirit. In 4 2017(6) ALD 300 12 B. Ratnamala Vs. G. Rudramma5, in this context it was observed by Division Bench of then High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad at Para-9 as follows:
"9. While considering the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, it has to be borne in mind that the said Act being a fiscal statute, plain language of the section as per its natural meaning is the true guide. No inferences, analogies or any presumptions can have any place."
23. When the bar to question an instrument, once admitted in evidence is so absolute in terms of Section 36 of Stamp Act, having regard to the nature of this enactment (Stamp Act) it is neither permissible to interpret its provisions in any other manner than what they convey and signify. Language of Section 36 of Stamp Act did not permit any elasticity nor it is malleable. It cannot be stretched to such an extent, importing what is not stated in it, to make this provision completely nugatory. It has its own effect. It also provides for collection of stamp duty including penalty on an instrument, taking recourse to Section 61 of Stamp Act. Therefore, no new device can be deployed by procedural means or adaptation. Procedural applications and implications- Effect:
24. Order 13 Rule 3 C.P.C can never provide a device or an instrument to render the effect of Section 36 of Stamp Act otiose. This bar is absolute in intent, purpose and object. It prevails in all circumstances. Hence, a document or an instrument once admitted in evidence, in such an unambiguous and clear environment at the trial, it is not correct to state that such document or instrument is inadmissible in evidence, calling for application of Order-13, Rules 3 & 4 CPC.
25. In A.P. Laly V Gurram Rama Rao referred to above, predominant procedural consideration is based on application of Order 13 Rule 3 and 4 C.P.C. amongst others. Endorsements on the documents admitted in evidence so provided under Rule 4 of Order 13 C.P.C, cannot be treated as mere instances of mechanical 5 AIR 2000 AP 167 13 application. They do have a purpose and an object. What is the effect of document once it is admitted in evidence in a civil suit, cannot and need not be confined, to Rule 4 of Order 13 C.P.C.
26. There is no necessity to search anywhere, to understand the purpose and meaning of these endorsements on the documents. The reason is that Rule 7 of Order 13 C.P.C provides a clear and complete answer. It states that once a document is admitted in evidence or a copy thereof, where its copy is substituted for the original under rule- 5, it shall form part of the record of the suit. When once it forms a part of the material record in the suit and as a part of evidence adduced by the party in support of his or her contention, in the guise of a device under Order 13 Rule 3 C.P.C, the document so admitted in evidence, cannot be tinkered with. Admissible nature of the document subject to exceptions stated above, remains as such. It becomes a part of material record in a suit and shall be construed for all purposes, as such. Legal effect as to probative value of the document so admitted in evidence, in given factual context is open for consideration, by the Court, in any eventuality.
27. A reference to Bopanna Prakasam Vs. Maganti Nagabhushanam 6 is desirable, in this context. The significance of the procedure followed in admitting a document under Order 13, Rule-4 CPC vis-à-vis Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act and how a judicial proceedings in that respect shall be construed is stated in Para-6 of this Judgment of Madras High Court. It is extracted hereunder:
"6.To my mind the question for decision is not whether the person who initialed the endorsement is the clerk or the District Munsiff but the question is whether the document has been admitted in evidence. The words of Section 36 are clear. It does not explicitly say that there must be a judicial determination of the question in the sense the expression has been explained in some of the judgments. What it says is simply it must be admitted in evidence and if it is admitted in evidence as laid down in the rules of the Civil Procedure Code, the plain meaning of the words is satisfied. It may be said that such admission would lead to this, that a mere mechanical act of admission would amount to an admission of a document within the meaning of Section 36. I can quite see the force of this argument.6
AIR 1938 Madras 938 14 But I have no doubt that the legislation when it enacted the law in Section 36 was quite alive to this position and it seems to me that the words "
admitted in evidence " were deliberately used in order to avoid complicated enquiries regarding the admission and the difficulties necessarily attendant upon such enquiries. One finds in one's experience that questions of this kind are raised in promissory note suits which admittedly should be disposed of as quickly as possible and the policy of law as indicated in the section is to allow admission of documents which have been admitted under the rules of the Civil Procedure Code"
28. Effect of an instrument or a document admitted in evidence once taken as a part of material record should also be considered in this context. If by the device under Order 13 Rule 3 C.P.C, if it is sought to be excluded from consideration, it amounts to prejudging the matters before conclusion of the trial. Law does not permit eschewing or rejection of evidence at the threshold or in the course of trial. A fair trial requires consideration of evidence, being let in by both the parties in proper perspective.
29. Therefore, for the above reasons, I respectfully differ from views expressed in A.P. Laly v Gurram Rama Rao by one of the learned Judges of then composite High Court of A.P at Hyderabad.
14) On careful examination of the entire material, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the 1st respondent. It is reasonable to leave the admissibility of the document open in respect of bar under Section 17 of the Registration Act to raise their objections at appropriate stage in the suit. In view of the same, in my considered view, the order under revision requires interference as it suffers from a serious irregularity.
15) In the result, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet in I.A.No.52 of 2023 in O.S.No.27 of 2019, dated 20.07.2023 is hereby set aside. The respondents are at liberty to raise an objection in the course of the suit proceedings with regard to admissibility or otherwise of Ex.A.5 for 15 sufficient stamping and registration in terms of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, if it is open or otherwise permissible. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet shall consider such objections in the final arguments in the suit after both parties let in evidence.
16) There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt. 10.10.2025.
PGR 16 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND C.R.P.NO.298 of 2025 Dt.10.10.2025 PGR